[NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing
Ron Van Putte
vanputte at cox.net
Mon Aug 3 19:50:56 AKDT 2009
Hmmm. R/C Soaring had six events and 146 total entrants. We had
four events with about 100 entrants. They got nine days and we got
four. Maybe someone can explain the logic.
Ron VP
On Aug 3, 2009, at 10:39 PM, krishlan fitzsimmons wrote:
> 09SO - RC Soaring Total Registrants - 146
> Event #NameOpenSeniorJunior
> 441HL Thermal Soaring3811
> 442Thermal Soaring Two Meter4611
> 444Thermal Soaring Unlimited10433
> 445F3B Thermal Soaring000
> 446F3H Cross Country Soaring000
> 456F3J4520
> 460RES Function (RES)7113
> 461Nostalgia (NOS)2100
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Mon, 8/3/09, Ron Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net> wrote:
>
> From: Ron Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Monday, August 3, 2009, 8:32 PM
>
> Maybe Tony Stillman can tell us. I didn't see the number of
> entrants posted for Soaring. Waiting for thermals is a personal
> problem; we don't get to wait for less wind.
>
> Ron VP
>
> On Aug 3, 2009, at 10:05 PM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:
>
> > I don't know much about the Soaring event. If I were to hazard a
> guess, it would be 1- more pilots and 2- waiting for thermals is
> less predictable
> >
> > MattK
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ron Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net>
> > To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > Sent: Mon, Aug 3, 2009 10:55 pm
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing
> >
> > Not too long ago, R/C Aerobatics had five days; the fifth day was
> a "rain day", just in case. When AMA decided to shorten the Nats,
> they took away our rain day. I was OK with that, BUT I don't see
> that the Nats are any shorter and, in looking over the Nats News, I
> noticed that R/C Soaring has NINE days. What's with that?
> >
> > Ron VP
> >
> > On Aug 3, 2009, at 9:44 PM, krishlan fitzsimmons wrote:
> >
> > > The $100 that we pay for the entry is small potatoes compared
> to > what we spend on the nats. Think about the time off work, all
> the > practice leading up, the expenses. I estimate that with the
> time I > took off work, and everything else that it cost me about
> (well I > won't say, or I will get crucified on here, lol). Raise
> my rate to > $200 and pay someone to weigh planes. Pay some judges.
> Pay some > zero judges. Pay for a few more days so that everyone
> gets equal > exposure judging. Whatever has to be done to make it
> fair for all. > Why settle for "well, it's sorta ok the way it is,
> not perfect, but > ok" when we can change it? I can't understand
> why people don't want > to make it better.
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- On Mon, 8/3/09, Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing
> > > To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-
> discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > > Date: Monday, August 3, 2009, 7:28 PM
> > >
> > > Rules are rules and we should enforce them for everyone - not
> just > the select few that make the finals. I would bet that the
> majority > of everyone that attends the Nats is compliant with the
> rules we > have today.
> > >
> > > Chris: I don't have any problems working to process planes - I
> > think the time would be fun to meet all the attendees and say hi.
> I > don't normally get to do that and this will give me an
> opportunity > to meet everyone. I'm also not looking to do this in
> lieu of my > judging duties either... I view my judging assignment
> as an > essential part of attending the Nats and look forward to it
> every > time. If someone is going to cheat by replacing servos or
> whatever > just to make weight then shame on them... perhaps Chad's
> solution > is the best one to weigh planes after they fly but that
> just makes > the logistics even harder I think since we don't have
> the enclosed > tents to do this and also enough scales etc. for
> each site.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 5:29 PM, John Konneker
> <jlkonn at hotmail.com> > wrote:
> > > Not the point I was trying to make.
> > > Please reread the last two sentences of my note below.
> > > ONLY legal planes would make the finals, semifinals and place
> if > the procedure that has been in place were followed.
> > > Respectfully,
> > > JLK
> > >
> > > Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 17:24:22 -0700
> > > From: derekkoopowitz at gmail.com
> > >
> > > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing
> > >
> > > Then why even bother to have the rules? How about noise and
> size? > Should we eliminate those rules as well? No one checks
> weight, size > and noise locally... so why should we bother having
> a rule for it > and enforcing it at the Nats?
> > > I don't buy it that attendance will diminish.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 5:16 PM, John Konneker
> <jlkonn at hotmail.com> > wrote:
> > > I have to agree with Chris.
> > > As someone has pointed out there are basically two types that >
> attend the Nats.
> > > Those that go to renew friendships and for the social aspects
> and > those that are trying to win.
> > > I have been told by more than one pilot attending that they
> aren't > concerned about their plane
> > > being overweight since they have no chance of making the finals
> or > placing and are there for the fun.
> > > I think you will see an even further decrease in attendance if
> > everyone gets weighed at checkin.
> > > The way it has been til now would be fine IF it was followed
> and > enforced.
> > > Otherwise it's just more search for the guilty, punish the
> innocent.
> > > JLK
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 19:57:03 -0400
> > > From: cjm767driver at hotmail.com
> > > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing
> > >
> > > I think we are making this more difficult than necessary (not
> aimed > at anyone in particular - I just jumped in on Chris's
> response). We > go through the process of weighing the potential
> winners and > finalists already - why not just mandate that the
> officials APPLY > the rule that already exists. No lee way or
> interpretation > necessary. Why weigh and measure if we are going
> to say "oh never > mind, that's ok" when they fail inspection. If
> they had applied the > existing rule, this discussion would not be
> going on. To implement > a new procedure (weighing all at check in)
> is going to need a bunch > of extra help to do and do we really
> want to have somebody > inventory EVERY item on the plane too in
> order to ensure they don't > change props, wheels, rx battery, etc
> after inspection? Who is > going to volunteer to do that to 100+
> airplanes? The current way > has worked just fine and would still
> be fine IF THE RULE AS IT > EXIS TS WAS APPLIED. Simple. Let's not
> make an overly elaborate > witch hunt in response to what happened.
> > >
> > > Chris (the other one)
> > >
> > >
> > > krishlan fitzsimmons wrote:
> > > Where do they weigh at a worlds event? Outside in the wind?
> > >
> > > Just curious.
> > >
> > > Thx!
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > > --- On Mon, 8/3/09, dkrev at shaw.ca <dkrev at shaw.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: dkrev at shaw.ca <dkrev at shaw.ca>
> > > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing
> > > To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-
> discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > > Date: Monday, August 3, 2009, 12:30 PM
> > >
> > > We got weighed after each round at the worlds..... Just saying :-)
> > > Sent from Dave's Crackberry
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: John Fuqua <johnfuqua at embarqmail.com>
> > >
> > > Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:35:25
> > > To: 'General pattern discussion'<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing
> > >
> > >
> > > Better be prepared to weigh 4 or 5 sets of batteries with each
> > competitor as
> > > well as airplanes.
> > >
> > > That's the thing with glow. Only dry weight counts. You can
> load as > much
> > > fuel as you wish to any weight! Electric stuck at a fixed max
> T.O. > Weight.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
> Derek
> > > Koopowitz
> > > Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 12:37 PM
> > > To: General pattern discussion
> > > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing
> > >
> > > I don't see an issue with this... we will put a sticker on all
> items
> > > including all packs that a competitor will use. If a competitor
> really
> > > wants to cheat then they will do it... nothing we can do will
> stop > that.
> > > I'm also hoping that random inspections will keep people honest
> and > the fear
> > > that if you do fail then you will be disqualified.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Jay Marshall
> <lightfoot at sc.rr.com> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have some concern that the proposals put forward will really
> work.
> > > If the plane is inspected at check-in then there is too much >
> opportunity to
> > > change things. In particular, batteries, which are a normally >
> removable
> > > item, can be changed to decrease on increase the weight. Do we
> > "sticker" the
> > > battery pack? This means the plane must be disassembled for >
> inspection and
> > > that only that battery pack can be used. At present fuel tanks
> can > also be
> > > under/over filled to adjust ballast for windy conditions.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If this is a serious problem, perhaps there are other solutions.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Planes could be placed in an impound/inspection area immediately
> > > before a flight and fully fueled. The inspection could happen
> here and
> > > shouldn't delay the flow of the contest.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Another possibility is to adopt a "standard" weight for a battery
> > > pack, then weigh electric planes empty. The "standard" could
> change as
> > > technology changes.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > As John Pavlick will tell you, all major race winners undergo a
> > > teardown and inspection.
> > >
> > > Jay Marshall
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > >
> > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > > Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.43/2280 - Release
> Date: > 08/03/09 17:56:00
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list